"Here,
a person gives gifts and presents, he is open handed and helpful,
hospitable and generous. Wherever someone indigent and destitute
approaches him, there he helps. Wherever he can make someone happy with a
gift there he does. For alleviating need and bringing happiness, he
gives: In giving he delights, giving makes him glad, giving makes him
happy and far is he from stinginess, envy and greed. For others he is
bland and pleasent, the noble-minded seek his acquaintance, he wins a
good reputation, he has a confident demeanour, and his heart becomes
lighter and released from fear and worry about life's necessities. And
even in the afterlife he achieves high reward and sway. Not does he give
carelessly in a way that he himself becomes a burden for others, nor
does he give randomly, without regard for the recipient; but he gives
with discernment, mindful of his own possibilities and mindful of the
other's situation. And the more his heart becomes replete with the
sentiment of giving the more selfless he becomes. Thus he works for his
own wellbeing and for the wellbeing of others.

Soon, though, he
notices that this is not yet the perfect manner that leads to harmony.
And why? Since he makes the experience that the best gifts often still
cannot cheer up the other: With full hands there he stands empty-handed,
helpless in helping. And furthermore: He makes the experience that he
himself, by using harsh words, destroys the harmony and the happiness of
the other again that he brought about by his giving. In this way,
giving stimulates a deeper understanding for the other's needs and
attacking the own failings more deeply."

I think everyone knows this in one way or the other, and here perhaps a case example of "by using harsh words, destroys the harmony and the happiness of the other again that he brought about by his giving":

This
topic is very deep and multifarious and quickly one is tried, after the
coarsest and most superficial layer, to immediately arrive at a
"judgement", and then switch over to ignoring. Often then one even calls
this equanimity, but that it is not at all.

It is an escape from
a "reality" which one does not want to handle, since, in order to
penetrate the issue, one would have to engage in self-inquiry, give up a
little bit of oneself, and that is something which only few want or
recognize as a path.

Before one can even give, one must learn to
receive, or better: to see gifts as gifts and not as matters of course,
and see the generosity therein. Everyone, on being asked, "Can you
receive?", would spontaneously and with a firm voice say: "Of course",
but is that really so?

A very striking experience I had in those
years in which I had to do with simple rice farmers, hunters and
gatherers in a remote village in an undeveloped region in Cambodia.

The
laws of giving and taking are here - today probably more out of habit
than out of understanding - adhered to very strictly. There are very
precise rules about whom, how, when and under which circumstances, one
gives, without causing disturbance in the group and at the same time
arresting envy and inequity. That all is a very healthy and
group-sustaining tradition. But even this needs a source of all that
which one can distribute and share, since nothing comes by itself or
even from oneself. Here it is the forest, nature. That which one takes
from here becomes an object of sharing and distributing. That is no
different for us in the "modern" world, but quite possibly very far away
from the common perception.

But for now I don't even want to go
that deep. Since there is a manner of behaviour which is very
commonplace and happens actually on a very rough level of
inattentiveness.

So I made the experience that most of the
villagers were only in the rarest cases able to accept things offered to
them. Certainly the reason of rejection was often socially determined,
but this manner of behaviour could, naturally, not remove their basic
greed.

So there was a neighbour who was hardly ever able to
accept a gift, for example some fruits from the garden. He would have
created an obligation for himself by that, the necessity to either give
this back, or, in some way to let others also have a share, or to make
something good out of what has been given. Everything else would weigh
down his conscience or bring him into a situation where he would lose
his desired exalted position, his status. Who wants to be a receiver
after all? Usually we want to be generous lords and masters. And that is
the same with the simple rice farmer as with the high society hero in
the "modern" world.

But this attitude does not remove the desire,
of course, and of course it is not the case that one can usually get
along without gifts or aids from outside. And so it was surprising, yes
even shocking to me, that the same people whom one has offered
something, then eagerly stole in the night that which they had been
offered before as gifts. In this way it seems possible for them to take
(accept) things. They must have the feeling to have come to these things
by themselves, having acquired them by themselves. They are so used to
taking, yes actually, stealing, that to accept and receive something is
something so unacceptable and extraordinary to them which appears far
too binding. When to someone who does not know gratitude one gives a
gift, then it is as if looking a thief straight in the face as one has
caught him in the act. Such is the reaction to a gift.

"Unimaginable!",
one would perhaps think: "What primitive people! A gift they proudly
reject and then in the night they greedily steal that which one would
have freely given before." But careful one has to be with such thoughts,
very careful, and reflect this attitude first for the "developed"
people, and foremostly for oneself.

People who live close to
nature have nature as their donor and benefactor, and it is the case, as
long as they are still unspoilt, that they very well afford
appreciation, gratitude and sacrifices towards this benefactor. That is
the evenness of those which we commonly see as primitive people, who
worship nature spirits, bring them sacrifices and make an effort towards
equity, gratitude and humility in this way.

They take and they
give, within their system. Today however the system is destroyed,
depraved and confused through "modern" influences. But the greed and the
desire are still there, only that no conscious balance is sustained
anymore. That the forest and the balanced nature disappear rapidly will
probably not have escaped anyone. The benefactor, "the mother", is
little by little devoured, unnoticed the effects on oneself. "Those bad
others...!" comes to mind immediately.

Far away this seems for us, but that is only since we stand in the middle of the forest just the same and cannot see its trees.

On
what ground now do the "modern" people stand? Has anything changed
there? Are the manners of acting different? No, and if one takes a
closer look then they are even worse, unconscientious and completely
removed and uprooted from a healthy, balanced tradition. They are even
proud of their achievements and that which they call freedom. Hardly any
primeval forest and its inhabitants are so encumbered in a relentless
struggle and competition about becoming, growing and getting as is the
"urban" world.

The "modern" behaviour even goes far beyond this
"unimaginable" behaviour of the simple but disrooted human beings. We
even generally assume that we are worthy of gifts, that we have a right
to receive things and we take things unabashedly, as long as they serve
the stilling of our desires. We sell "rights" to each other that we
don't even have, since such do not even exist in this manner. Apart from
this general consumption of that which is everywhere offered and
bestowed upon us (most of it for sure not given freely but bound up with
many conditions which, in the moment of taking, we matter-of-factly
belittle and negate), we then also take that which we recognize clearly
as giving. Completely immoderate, and all this with an astounding
self-assurance and arrogance. "You are worth it!" screams it from the
advertisement wall, and we eat the bait with delight.

Certainly
one can see one's own behaviour only with difficulty and recognize one's
errors only with some trouble, and therefore it is so necessary and
important to find this out through this endeavour of being anxious to
give, learning to give and wanting to give, and understanding and
penetrating its nature.

Let us take a child here as an example.
You feel like giving a cake to the child. The child, instead that it
gratefully accepts the cake, says that it does not like that cake. How
perspiciously is it nowadays seen as "compassionate" that one
immediately digs deeper and asks the child: "Ah! What is it then that
you want? Do you want ice-cream perahps?" In this manner it is that one
is reared and brought up in this "modern" "compassionate" world. This we
call compassion: We help each other (to) satisfy our cravings and
appetites. What kind of people would that be that did not accede to the
wishes and desires of the child: Hard, without compassion, cold... "This
is but only a child" ... or perhaps really concerned for the child, when there is one day no cake and no ice-cream to be had everyday anymore?

We
are no different than the child, and the "consumer spirit" appreciates
and treasures our weaknesses and knows how to use them. Oh, how we feel
so independent and free today, *click* *click *click*... everything is
for free and if one knows the jungle then one will not lack anything.
But this jungle narrows down, just as the jungle outside is hard-fought,
disappears and loses its freedom, so just the same the natural
principles take their course even in the "modern world".

Maybe
one must have seen and observed things by oneself: How human beings
behave when the resources become scarce and greed and fear drive the
masses. Ant colonies strive through the forests and still try to get
hold of the most and best when they hear that the going might get tough.
If you tell them about modesty as a solution they only see the danger,
but not the way that is evinced by this. The forest is there for
everyone and we all have a right to our share, and so the forest becomes
a crisis zone.

We live in a fast-paced world, so fast-paced that
it is perhaps even already too fast to observe things. Let's take the
forest "internet". Not long ago an uncultivated place where things just
grew wildly, now it is little by little occupied, appropriated and
possessed, stubbed, farmed, objectified, ruled and tilled and cultivated
with an orientation towards profit.

Do you still know the days
when one came back home from this forest with gratitude, rejoicing in
its fruits? Do you still know the days when one took two hours time to
answer an e-mail or one thanked for a service? Or maybe even the days
when one received a letter from a pen-friend in Africa?

Everything
is easier nowadays, faster, free and without commitments and without
the necessity of recognition and gratitude. There is no equity
necessary, that's how it is today. And who should that be, the one who
gives? Where do all the things come from? From the outlet and the
network cable? Or eventually still out of the forest again? Maybe even
from people who share something they have acquired? No: The e-mail comes
from the service center from a part time worker who earns his deserved
pay. Do we after all continuously and ungratefully enter into new
engagements without number, which we in no way recompense and thereby
unknowingly indebt ourselves?

"Horrible, such engagements I would
never want to have to enter into. Then I'll just rather go and take my
own things, procure my own things and stay independent." - "But which?
From where?"

In the modern day and age one has developed
elaborate anonymous systems to keep their sustainers free from qualms
and regrets, but that those are but only artificial illusory worlds we
recognize in the never seen before appearances of physical as well as
mental illnesses of modern people. Cancer devours them, diabetes burdens
their daily life, depression, traumatic phenomena, and so on... Things
that one will not find among the "primitive" people. There it usually
happens differently, yet still in the same way, if someone oversteps the
boundaries and for example cuts down a tree unaskedly. Here we think
there is not such a thing as "possessed by demons". But the nature and
the cause are the same. We may call it sicknesses today, but their cause
lies in an imbalance of conscience which makes beings susceptible for
the attack by disease (demons).

And what do we do against
sicknesses today? We try to get rid off the symptoms, but only rarely
the cause. Such a pill which helps fast, even if it is taken from the
jungle again, which is taken for granted, something one is entitled to
and which creates new liabilities, is simply more comfortable than to
deal with the roots of the disease and start taking less, yet strive
towards being able to give something one day, or at least endeavour for
some balancing. But also that "living on credits" is a development of
modern times, as if one could escape the rebate.

There we rather
install a free download virus program, instead of examining our surfing
and internet use habits. Where there is demand there are givers. From
what the givers may live...?

Now imagine that one has been given a
self-made text editor from a friend, and the neighbour enjoys with
Google Chrome (only as an example) the abundance of all text editors of
the present generation. "What, and for that I'm even supposed to say
thanks? The same I get for free in a thousand times better quality." Or
maybe we even make it to a condescendingly smiling "Ohh, thanks!"

And
what does the primitive man think when you want to give him some
fruits? "Oh, if he knew where there are the good and sweet ones to be
found in abundance. Those I get there for free whenever I want."

Maybe
now one can already recognize the depth of the subject, and it would be
very unskillful to think that this part of the path that lays ahead one
could just skirt and avoid right away, although one still does not even
know it in the least.

All too gladly one constructs one's "I
deserve this" model again and tries it with faked equanimity which is
nothing else but the attempt at not even having to try examining the
roots. "Inherited I have this, it is my own past merit", as if the world
was full of rich heirs of wealth. There is a marked distinction between
inherited and heaped up for years on the backs of others. That too is a
heritage, but to carry it is not marked by freedom, and out of that
cycle one can never escape as a consumer. May the forest appear as
extensive and lasting as it may, taking does not relieve one's
conscience, but accepting of that which is given freely gives, through
recognizing the act of generosity, an example: That such things are
possible and can also work in different ways after all. First we have to
arrive at a point where we are able to keep giving and taking in a
balance, and when we have reached that point then we can at last relish
how it works wonders to give up more than one takes up and imbibes
again.

If one brings home this whole matter to others, or let's
say, brings it home to oneself, if we say to the "primitive" native that
he steals and if he becomes aware of that, then nevertheless there is
rarely more to expect than that he will feel ashamed and escape into
self-pity. He does not come out of his state of slavery. Rather he would
serve for eons than to start freeing himself. Gospels (songs of lament
and short-lived entertainment) are everything that makes his everyday
life bearable, but seemingly to him it is completely sufficient.

There
is a sentence which sadly in recent history was used wrongly and lead
to great suffering. But it is a sentence which holds much truth and even
the solution to the problem. We cringe, usually, when we hear someone
say "Labour makes (you) free" (here also a story which exemplifies this
very well: "To Engage In Undertakings Of A Righteous Action is Most Blissful "),
but exactly this is the only solution to escape the cycle. Skillful
acts and not inactivity and lack of will while still being driven by
greed and desire (in the manner of "I deserve this").

No one else
can force us to our happiness or our freedom or give it to us. It is
something that we have to work hard for by ourselves, and it only works
out if we also recognize that by ourselves and make up our minds by
ourselves to take this "hard" but fruitful route.

Oh, how so many
people wish for beautiful monasteries for example, a buddhist way of
life, simple living... and yet still cling tightly to all their
belongings, would have a hard time only devoting a little amount of
their time every week to wipe the communal hall a little bit or root out
some weeds every other day. "And what do I gain from it? No one will
thank me. For what do I pay 'taxes', do I pay donations, do I already
bring so much about by my presence? ... Shall others take it upon
themselves, I am a hardworking person, and neither am I rich..."

All
that is possible today, and Dhamma is available at the bookstore after
all, or in the supermarket. It does call for a fundamental decision,
whether one goes along with this corrupt cycle or simply starts learning
to receive, and also to give, or even to start making an effort and
endeavouring for one's own virtue.

May one as a living room
ascetic feel as secure and skilled in one's talent of samadhi as one
likes, in the end, what we wanted to have recognized, "Ahh, I knew it",
with hasty reassurance (in order to be able to distance ourselves again a
bit from the troublesome things), still ends again with the sentence:

(sangha vatthu) There
are two paths leading to benevolence. Which two? The good path, which
is helpful and welcoming, and the best path, which is liberating and
leads to salvation. With those two, the latter includes the former,
requires it, cannot exist without it.

Without the good, the
best will never come to be, even if we rejoice in the pleasent, still we
first have to go through the unpleasent. Nothing is for free in this
world. On credit, with one's own sweat, or taken shamelessly and without
gratitude, everything has its according price. This shortcut does not
exist, even if we would throw everything away with still so much
frustration, and don't like this all in the least, it is but only the
conceit which keeps us away from the good things, and the pleasent has
nothing to do with the best after all.

If we think that
"consuming wealth makes free" (today, there are also many "Buddhists"
after all, who think that freedom is possible through wealth), then it
may easily come to renewed misuse of the sentence "(Skillful) work makes
free". Are we not already trying again to become free on the backs of
others? Don't we already pay the price for having tried to become free
on the backs of others?

At this point, I want to conclude these suggestions and proposals with a sutta quote:

Abandon
the unwholesome! It is possible to abandon the unwholesome. If it were
not possible to abandon the unwholesome, I would not say thus: "Abandon
the unwholesome!" But because it is possible to abandon the unwholesome,
I say: "Abandon the unwholesome!"

If this abandoning of the
unwholesome led to harm and suffering, I would not tell you to abandon
it. But because the abandoning of the unwholesome leads to welfare and
happiness, I say: "Abandon the unwholesome!"

Develop the
wholesome! It is possible to develop the wholesome. If it were not
possible to develop the wholesome, I would not say thus: "Develop the
wholesome!" But because it is possible to develop the wholesome, I say:
"Develop the wholesome!"

If this developing of the wholesome led
to harm and suffering, I would not tell you to develop it. But because
the developing of the wholesome leads to welfare and happiness, I say:
"Develop the wholesome!'

- AN 2.19 ("Right effort", translation (adapted from) Bhikkhu Bodhi)

If
after death everything was over then making debts would possibly be the
most intelligent way. There is good reason after all why one does not
like to accept this all too eagerly. Even "Buddhism" without rebirth is,
after all, gladly consumed today. Whether belief can change laws of
nature, cause and effect, remains to be seen, and for sure we are not
trying it for the first time, but maybe the last time in this way.